Does Technology Actually Kill Jobs?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- Get a 15-day free trial for unlimited backup at: backblaze.com/techquickie
Learn about some times new technology put people out of work...and times when it didn't!
Leave a reply with your requests for future episodes.
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ON FLOATPLANE: lmg.gg/lttfloatplane
► SPONSORS, AFFILIATES, AND PARTNERS: lmg.gg/partners
FOLLOW US ELSEWHERE
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
2:45 as someone who works in telecom, the buildings that housed this equipment are now abandoned and sometimes haunted. its so eerie walking through a massive 6 story building with little to no windows that have moldy walls and droopy ceiling tiles... then you find the server rooms which are still maintained well. The amount of jobs lost to automation in telecom is nuts.
And then people don't really read any more. Libraries are pretty much abandoned except for the computers, graphic novels, or as the rare hang out spot.
@@EmilyS-gk3sthuh? I live in a regular ol town and there’s still a decent amount of people checking out books or media at libraries
@@njmcfreak Try the more populated city or the college campus libraries.
@@EmilyS-gk3st People still read. They just don't read books as much, especially not paper ones.
@@EmilyS-gk3st my town is a quarter million people. It is one floor of a not huge building
Alex: Does Technology Actually Kill Jobs?
Alex, next year: AI fcked me up!
We'll get to the point where tech designs, builds, repairs tech. And tech, will be everywhere.
You can't really use past data.
Yes please. Now we can replace Girlfriends/Boyfriends with AI
That's still James, y'know?
Who’s Alex?
@@noneyabizz8337 nier automata??😮😮
"You can always become a streamer." 7:23
Yeah.....not even streaming is safe of AI, especially from a vtuber turtle and his both creations
You mean Vedal and Neuro sama+Evil Neuro
@@sebay4654 yup, exactly
Tbh it is also the work of anny as well, but yeah those twins are getting numbers for sure
Not that I don't like them, but it'a impressive how AI can even reach to the entertainment industry
people actually watch vtubers?
@@ItsReallyGeo You'd be suprised
Yes, it is still a bit niche but it's getting closer to the top streamers like asmongold or Ibai
Neuro it's far away a top streamer, but has got an audience
But aren't those people putting work behind it? They still also have to edit the videos.
Thumbnail: "So, Robo, what do you think I should do"
Robo: "Go home. You're fired"
Diggers were also replaced by diggers, the exact same as computers. I think Americans call the machines excavators.
Technology and AI can help workers be more productive, work faster or produce the same outcome with less effort. The problem is exploitive capitalism, the bosses who just want more and more money every year. They will just replace all workers or ask the same worker to produce more results, of course at any time they can just fire them and hire a new one.
No, the problem is that increased efficiency per worker means needing less workers from a sheer practicality standpoint
The problem is once too many people get laid off, suddenly, there's demand for products goes down because people can't afford them due to being unemployeed.
@@InfernosReaperYou would think, but demand somehow stays up even during economic downturns in this day and age.
@Jj82op "The problem is exploitive capitalism, the bosses who just want more and more money every year."
Nonsense. Everyone want's more money every year.
"replace all workers or ask the same worker to produce more results"
Supply and demand restricts what you can ask for. It's what stops you asking your boss for $1,000,000 an hour, and stops your boss asking you for $0.01 an hour.
If there's lots of cheap labor due to immigration, you'll see wages drop.
@@InfernosReaper This is only a temporary event. All technology that reduces labor to make X widget is good in the long run.
@@joeblogs6598 Not really. At some point technology will render far too many jobs obsolete compared to the amount of jobs it creates. It's inevitable
The only real thing up for debate is "what to do about it"
As a tv repair tech myself:
I hope my job stays alive for longer than the Switchboard operators.
But who knows
I would imagine your skillset could transfer somewhat smoothly to a different profession, like medical equipment repair or any other kind of specialized electronics
They are already not bothering to repair cheaper units.
I had an HD 4K TV which was in need of repair recently. I posted on several different groups looking for someone to do the job, and the nearly unanimous response was "Nobody does that anymore, you'll just have to recycle and replace it.", so that was what I unfortunately ended up doing. 🤷♂
You can go as repair/service technician to a company with industrial machines. Pretty well paid job if you are willing to learn.
For my place of work, it's not cause we don't want to, it's cause we can't. Manufacturers tend to not create replacement parts (like screens) for the cheap brands. Hell, some big brands don't give all parts we need for repair either for "reasons"
TVs being cheaper to replace rather than repair also speaks to the industry's shift towards planned obsolescence.
Not necessarily. I'm not saying planned obsolecscence isn't a thing, it absolutely is. I think disregard for repairability is a much bigger problem though. At the end of the day, it's normal that ye olde CRT TV, which was put together by human hands, could easily be repaired by human hands. A modern TV on the other hand is a highly integrated unit that could only have been produced by machines and if you're not very careful to design it in a way that makes it still easily repairable, you automatically end up with something where each little problem takes it straight to the landfill.
Sometimes the problem is the power supply or a capacitor which can easily be replaced by a human, but the amount of time it'll take and the work time fee alone will sometimes cost more than a new TV.
Not necessarily, in part it's a co.bination of the cost of making them new vs the cost of paying someone to fix it.
If you have a 5yo TV that breaks, are you going to pay someone $1k to fix it or just get the latest model with better everything for $2k?
Most people will do the latter.
What we really need is electronics that are designed to be repairable. The initial sticker price will probably be a tad higher, but that should be offset over time when you can easily replace pieces that break rather than the whole thing. And even if you do feel like an upgrade, it should be trivial for someone to take the old device off your hands for a bit of change and fix it themselves relatively cheaply.
@Razear Not really, it just shows capitalism has allowed technological innovation to reduce the cost of production so much that it's cheaper to make something new than go to the bother of repairing it. Quite excellent really.
@@unvergebeneid That only really applies to consumer countries, like the USA, Which has high value currency so it's easier to import than pay someone to fix. Other countries do fix and repair is normal.
"does technology kill jobs?"
- Nope, HR does.
Correct. I work part time for a small family run engineering business. I could earn more back on the "big corp" world but dealing with HR, among other things, is just not worth it.
Nope, corporations do. CEO's with multimillion salaries get bonuses for record profits while laying off employees.
I served in a military hospital in southern italy in 98 at the phone calls were still routed manually. there were no cables to be moved around, though, just buttons.
Chimney sweep is still an existing job where homes still have a chimney, especially in rural areas
It's not just about if the jobs are killed, but how much the replacement jobs pay. I guarantee you, they're paying more for programmers now than they will for "prompt engineers" in the future.
Not quite. Programmers are not often hired. It's a product that's baught and used to replace an employee by a cheaper one. Programmers aren't needed to run the product.
If prompt engineers are more productive than programmers, they will be paid more. If it takes five programmers getting paid $100,000 each to do a project and they can be replaced by a single prompt engineer, that person will be paid more than a programmer. It is unlikely that he will be paid $500K, but he might get paid $200K.
@@CCoburn3 i highy doubt a "prompt engineer" would be paid more. The whole point with a.i is to reduce cost and improve productivity at most the "prompt engineer" would be paid the same as a single programmer if not less depending on the work needed to be done and as a.i improves there is a possibility that his job may also be a risk. Also 4 programmers are now out of a job in this scenario.
@@CCoburn3 There's a good chance 'prompt engineer' won't even be a thing in the long run, similar to how switchboard operators didn't last long. The whole point of the recent AI boom is to make the AI as intuitive to control as possible, with natural language commands. The better the AI gets, the less a 'prompt engineer' will even be needed. Also even if the role survives in some form, wages are a function of not just demand but also supply. There'll be a much larger supply of capable prompt engineers - since it's much easier to train for - than there are skilled programmers today. And you'll need fewer of them to get your work done. Both forces will push down the wages they'll receive.
@@CCoburn3 What's more likely to happen is that prompting the AI is simply tacked on to the job responsibilities of all the people whose jobs haven't yet been fully automated, and likely with no or little increase in their pay. At best they'll be given some training courses on how to work with AI, and then expected to take on even more responsibilities than before. Which kills a lot of jobs and creates almost none.
Of course, it does, but with new tech comes new jobs, but those jobs are getting more complicated. So not only are we losing jobs to automation and AI, but the IQ needed to do certain jobs get higher. The future is definitely scary.
The simpler jobs being lost is also terrible for anybody entering any of these fields that are getting more complicated. You used to work a simpler job for a few years, learning along the way and then eventually being able to be hired for the more demanding/complex things due to experience. Well, that position is replaced or being replaced, removing the entry point to the field. The companies are looking only for seniors or junior positions that still require years of experience or skills that you can't really get anymore. This is also the case for internships, as there's less work to offer (it's replaced or being replaced) and many companies are getting rid of any "extra" employees that could teach interns, so nobody has the time to manage the interns anyway. All the while schools and other education methods, are not competing, because they'd need to teach expert level experience, but without the basics that's not really possible or a good idea.
it's not tech in itself that destroys jobs, it's those who own it and how they use it to squeeze ever bigger profit margins
Stop pretending workers don't also want as much money as possible. All humans want the maximum for the minimum effort.
@@joeblogs6598 never said we don't, but please come back to talk to me once you're a multi billionaire, until then it's just pathetic that you're defending them lmao
Nope. Not even close bud
@@seansingh4421 What's not close?
Technology is developed to REDUCE number of current jobs needed in that area so save expenses. People then have to go to another segment of the supply line to look for work.
The problem is we are nearing a point where ALL segments of the supply chain have been maximized by technology and job reduction, leaving less decent hobs available for job seekers. Looking at past tech upgrades won't be helpful as the supply chain line had many lower technology spots to move to.
What remains are the lower level service jobs that haven't been automated like retail, delivery, restaurants, and fast food.
We are at a point where all top level professions will be affected- doctors, lawyers, engineers, programmers, etc...
pro AI shills forget that for we to have societal issues we dont need EVERY job to be replaced, just enough for an ever-increasing unemployment rate driving wages even lower than they already are
If AI and robots could do all jobs for us then we wouldn't need to work. The problem is we are probably still a century away from that.
@@lycanthoss the problem is getting the rich and the bought politicians to see humans as humans and give a universal income to what will be vast unemployed masses. but we see how people treat the homeless today...I've little hope for humans.
@chaoticviking7679 100%. The people in charge see employees as a line item or an expense that they're trying to reduce as much as possible. Either by paying employees less or removing them altogether. If that trend continues then at some point there's not going to be enough middle class to support the economy, because at the end of the day someone has to actually buy all the products and services being made.
Yeah what the people who keep bringing up the Luddite story miss is that we actually have lost most work in each sector that's been highly automated. Most of us used to work in the primary sector i.e. agriculture. Now only a tiny minority do in most developed countries. We moved from there to the secondary sector i.e. manufacturing. Now factories are highly automated, and most people in developed economies work in the teritiary i.e. services sector. Well if you automate that too, then where're we gonna move to? There is no fourth sector of the economy. They keep airily saying new jobs will be created, but rarely specify exactly what those new jobs will be (other than 'making the machines' i.e. AI programmers - which is never going to employ most people). And crucially what we need is MASS employment at a living wage, not some niche new professions.
James looks great talking at us from the garment manufacturing floor!
Also, I operated an old fashioned telephone cord-board back in 1977.
1:04 love how he was edited down there
AI job replacement is fundamentally different than all previous tech job replacement because it targets the one area humans always used to have the advantage in: managing complex situations.
Historically, most of the jobs that were created after a new technology tool was introduced were either directly managing that new tool, or managing some new use case for that tool. Farmers went from largely farming by hand, to using basic tools like plows, to eventually managing/running modern farm vehicles and machines. The advent of computers created jobs both for managing the hardware/software directly, and also for managing all of the many use cases like sending emails and using applications to create online content.
The thing about AI is that it has/will have the ability to manage most of these types of jobs, AND also manage whatever jobs/tasks that are needed in the future. The last consistent advantage that humans have over technology of being able to manage complex situations will be gone, and the total number of jobs available for humans to meaningfully do will likely decrease significantly as time goes on. This should be a great thing, of course, as long as we reorganize society properly so that you don't need a full time job to get basic resources for living.
A long time ago, last century, I had a farmer telling me that computers will take all those jobs. I asked whether he was going to trade in the tractor and put on people to do the job. He shut up then as I had pointed out his own hypocrisy.
Old automation tended to move people up to better jobs, but businesses always tried to push them down to lower wage costs. The better replacement jobs took a while to be invented. Now we have the corporations sacking most of the workforce and complaining about the "lazy" unemployed. The replacement jobs have not come around yet but the rate of change of the technology means that those jobs will also be automated.
So those at the top will complain about the unemployed, pay minimum for those that they do employ and wonder why there doesn't seem to be anyone buying their products.
It also, through procedural generation is replacing the *other* thing humanity was good at The Arts.
Things are setup to where jobs are going to get replaced by computers far faster than people can find a new way to earn a decent living. Too many fields are going to be put on the chopping block too soon.
Until now we have replaced brawn with brain. Now we are replacing brain as well there's not going to be a lot left that is unique to human abilities. I'm not talking gpt4 I'm talking gpt12 btw
AI is the same as all other technology. It reduces the labor required to produce goods. This is invariably good in the long run. Less time spent making something leaves more time to do something else.
Used to need 100 people ploughing a field with mattocks, now it's a guy in a tractor.
Using the government to ban AI not only makes future generations lose out on long term benefits, it'll actually make matters worse: The government will only allow itself and crony corporations to have access to AI.
@@alanhilder1883 Wages are determined by supply and demand. We've got lots of immigration from countries were people work for less; the supply of cheap labor increases, the price of labor drops.
We've also got the economy slowing down, no industry so no real production; demand for labor drops, price drops.
These are some of my favorite videos. A quick little history lesson on tech.
I've thought of this for a very long time.
It is important for those in positions to set the stage to take all of that into account and implement it intelligently so that you create a vibrant work model and economy.
1:54 Chimney sweeps still exist and you should hire one every 5 years... Do none of LTT's employees have a fireplace living in Canada?
James: He says 'become a streamer'
Me: *Looks at Neuro-Sama*
also Me: Well if you can't beat em, join em.
Me: *Starts creating AI Chatbot for stream*
Progression is like a steamroller slowly moving towards you, you have 3 options. Move out of the way, get on board or get flattened! You can reason with it all you like but that thing is not stopping. With this in mind, you will make much better decisions!
And my mind went to the Austin Powers movie.
To get onboard you still need to get out of the way.
@@alanhilder1883 100% haha
At some point it might be an idea to have a word with the people driving the steamroller though. We could perhaps ask them if we could have a break from dragging the steamroller towards ourselves as we run from it and enjoy some of the increased productivity by spending time with our families and such rather than increasing their profits.
@@zyebormsteamroller says no
@zyeborm talk all you like It's still moving but closer now, make a decision! that's the point!
I fully agree with 99% of this video, but the thing that is different this time around is that we're not building specific machinery to replace one job sector; we're building a generalist system that'll take away all jobs, including the creators of the said generalist system themselves.
You show a wikipedeia article on chimney sweeps as a outdated job, but they are still an important part of not burning down your house while having an active fire place
Imagine being a content creator that literally just recites information ready available on the web and pretending AI is not a problem for you
👌
Did you even watch the video? the point is that although jobs will be lost, there are always new jobs opening up, and people are generally pretty good at adapting to that.
No, Jobs has been dead for a while
At my parents house there were no chimney sweepers because the old one died. So they had to do it themselves for years. Now there is a chimney sweeper there again so that occupation still exists.
Businesses don't seem to want AI to increase productivity, but to replace employees entirely.
If you could run a business entirely without people, wouldn't you?
@@dennisestenson7820 The first people I'd replace would be the executives, since they pay themselves the highest salaries. But of course in the real world they hit the multitudes at the bottom, while the fat cats are precisely the folk least threatened by this tech. How about we remove the people from the business - but starting at the top instead?...
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I have a feeling that you are one of those people who thinks that socialism would've worked simply if the leaders were not corrupt and had the best intentions in the world. Hint: leaders in capitalist society are even worse.
@@dennisestenson7820 Can you be profitable without selling anything? If everyone replaced all their employees with automation, no one would have any income to buy what you are selling in the first place. You can't be profitable by cutting costs alone.
@@ArawnOfAnnwnso, you want the bosses to be lifeless, cold AI programs? You want said AI to direct and make decisions about the company's future?
Luddites weren't afraid of technology but angry about of losing their jobs and being forced to take up jobs that both paid less and were less safe in the city and mines, or being forced to emigrate overseas, and all because of corporate greed. One of reasons way Britain has such bad cuisine is because of the 19th century migration to the city, recipes and foods easily cooked in the country could not be had in the cities and were thus forgotten.
High workforce participation does not mean those jobs are good jobs and in a knowledge-based economy that this slowly cannibalized by automation what's even gonna be the point of college for most people or even finishing high school? We're nearly 18 months into generative ai and it's already passed the Bar Exam, in two decades what do you think it's gonna be capable of? We're fucked.
It's already begining to be used to replace game Developers (specifically designers(Writers aka my main focus)) even (source i have been studying game dev for the past few years and I've Already Seen the other students begin using AI to Cheat in the courses but were instead Praised by the Teacher for "Taking Advantage of Modern Tools to Expedite the design process"(i quit that place after the 2nd year since id already gotten 3 Separate qualifications through them instead of signing up for annother course because i personally see ai as it is Now as Morally wrong and corrupted at a foundational level
AI automating jobs means less labor to make something. Less labor means cheaper production. This means more business can make the product making more competition. This makes the product cheaper.
AI means cheaper products.
Cheaper products means things that were originally to expensive to make because their constituent products were too costly, are now possible. E.g. making the Hoover dam 500 years ago would've been completely uneconomical, or SpaceX would be unprofitable in the 1950s.
I would love to see TV repairmen make a comeback, especially to preserve CRT TVs.
Another way to ask this, which I think most people think about it is. Does AI and technology replace jobs? In that case, the answer is very much yes.
Those people will be moved from doing one job to having to do another... and in many cases, the job might not be something the person likes.
I also think there's a limit to how quickly people can adapt to new and different jobs... I believe with the advancements in technology, there may be a point that jobs are replaced faster than people can adapt to another job and could lead to increased unemployment.
In addition to limits on what people can adapt to(especially since some jobs take *years* to develop the skills for), there's a limit to what's going to be available in general. With multiple industries getting gutted, there's going to be a lot of people digging for the scraps of what's left.
Yes. After cars, there really are not a lot of horses running around.
With auto-cashiers, self-checkouts, and similar such service-role eliminators, there're fewer minimum-skill workers around, demanding a higher price for their labor than it costs for machines. Sadly, a few bad apples really hurts the whole bunch.
But generally, that just means people are pushed to different jobs. Like picking up trash. It's a surprisingly lucrative job, for just how few people are competing for your position.
We still have knocker-uppers here. But they don't seem to get paid and usually are from Airbnb appartments, drunk and seem to want Wi-Fi passwords in the middle of the night 🙃
My grandfather was a TV technician, he fix other stuff too but TVs was his main job, he close the shop when flat TV becomes wide spread.
No. The difference is that they can hire people for cheaper instead of having people with specialized skills. You can get 50 people in China churning out 5,000 Shein garments a day for $5 or you can have 1 specialist making high quality garments at a rate of 5 per day for $50/hour. Companies are always going to go for the cheaper option to pad their CEO bonuses. So yeah, there's more jobs, technically, but it also means very low pay.
I remember my father's story. How to use telephone when phone number are just 2 digits. It was back in end of '70.😂😂😂
it's called technological outsourcing, and eventually it's going to be hard to have a job, but it's still a long way off
Every year we pick up our pace on the race to human obsolescence.
@@noneyabizz8337damn shakespeare
Eventually they will have to realize that AI replacements don't consume their products, so when they eliminate enough jobs the consumer base able to afford the products will start to suffer and the market grow smaller.
Yea that's the most negative way to see it, but a huge amount of office jobs can in time be eliminated and replaced by AI. Cabs, busses and trains will with time be automated. In fact a lot of jobs can be replaced with automated systems that's faster and cheaper than having some human do the job. Stores have tested this with self service checkout. Less people working as cashiers means saved money for the stores. And yes sometimes I select the self checkout to avoid the cues. Oh and the same area as two checkouts use hosts ten self checkout registers. More efficiency and cheaper for the store.
So with less jobs what will people do to make money? Heck if I know.
@@blahorgaslisk7763 it will be the end of capitalism
And this is why we need UBI so that we can _let_ robots take our jobs without humans being any worse off! Don't need to fight newer technology if it comes alongside newer, more compatible economics
A correlation between increased automation and increased workforce, does not mean a causation. Adjust for market size, and you'll see the reduction. Not only that, but also a median wage decrease.
Unfortunately I feel that this wave of AI taking over jobs (slowly, but eventually) is going to be severely, far more impactful than basically all of the examples given combined. It’s not gonna be great.
because it's not one job here and there over time, it'll be vast swaths of jobs everywhere all the time
it will be the end of capitalism as we know it
@@chaoticviking7679 And no replacement jobs this time.
I think there is a significant issue with the historical comparisons. Technology back then in luddite times excelled production and made new jobs, like looking after the machines. The jobs created didn't need massive expertise, the skills were different but achievable by the average luddite. What we're seeing now is the potential for AI and tech to simultaneously replace skilled and unskilled work while simultaneously requiring highly skilled professionals to act as support. Many can't achieve the support skills, especially not in reasonable time, but also the beginning of the elimination of multiple jobs simultaneously means there is no easy way to cope..
6:42 lmao dude just decided to attack all of Facebook and most of Twitter
At some point, we will have AI producing AI virtual things for AI consumers
I can see the pontential for AI for creating an entire video including promotions and reducing the need to compensate to content creators, and don't forget to include the slogan "It is for security reasons".
James is great shout outs to James!
As a translator, absolutely it does. It also suppresses wages for existing jobs simply by existing. These aren’t tools saving translators time either; it is faster to translate from scratch than fix mtl output if you care about quality.
1:55 get knocked up by robots
Tycho Brahe! You need to make a video about how badass he was
I know people who work in a Graphic Design company, they took my friends template and applied it to their AI, eventually everyone was laid off.
Companies should be taxed for laying people off through no fault of their own. This is an insult to the very people who made that AI possible.
Currently losing my work as a recording engineer in the french voice dubbing department because lf AI, clients have the choice on budget, and already prefer quantity over quality.
1:04 reminds me of where's waldo.
Smooth video.
I'm sad you didn't say anything about sabot shoes!
The biggest reason why there are so few TV repair technicians is that you no longer get the circuit board schema for your TV as you used to and neither is it available online from the manufacturer, so anyone trying to fix a TV has to first (at least partially) reverse-engineer it, which makes it usually cost more to repair than to buy new. That's why right to repair is so important!
That's where the expression came from! Knocked up by the knocker-upper.
Give it time
AI will absolutely destroy jobs not because AI it's self but the greedy ceos will ex. a ceo of a game company fired over half it's staff then gave himself a massive bonus(what would have been their income) for the trouble.
Without the video even being uploaded. It already has. Automation has been going on for long time now
Yes. As much as I love technical innovation, one thing it does it crush societies economy and intrinsic values. Not just in replacing the person with a machine, but by taking liberties providing less over time and becoming lazy in maintaining the processes and values of the company. - or people.
What?
Where/when?
@@silversolver7809 Everywhere, all the time... Step outside of IT or office spaces and it happens just as often.
@@R3AL-AIM But you say "crush societies economy and intrinsic values". Society and civilization has advanced thru history in line with tech advances-we even name human eras after the main tech of the time, eg Stone, Age, iron Age etc.
@@silversolver7809 On a technological level, sure, but humans are not robots. We are humans. Have you looked at the history of war and dictatorship? None of this is going to last. Once the people start to fall, so does everything else. The technology is never completely lost, it just evolves, many of which after societies and nations before them had failed.
the thing that will keep creative professions AI-proof is exactly that: the human element. AI might be able to fill in frames for a marvel movie in 20 years (or sooner), but it’ll never be raised in a small town in flyover country and write a tender song about its demise. or a kaleidoscopic prose poem with references to its own life. or be a figure with a story for the next generation to look up to.
if some people don’t care about the human element in art, then frankly, that’s their loss. but there will always be a market for art created by humans, and no amount of automation can eliminate that.
**My Computer is super hot**
The meaning has changed drastictly over the decades. But, not in a good way
"MOTHMAN MAILMAN MAKES A SPECIAL DELIVERY IN OUR BUTTS " -You know the editors had a blast with this one
Since you brought up the Luddites: They werent just pissed that their jobs were automated and they were joined by many non-weavers:
1) Only rich people could afford weaving machines and they would buy up raw materials at an insanely high rate, while producing vastly inferior products. At the same time they drove down the wages for everyone in the weaving industry, which meant the death of entire towns centered around this skill. So in effect they came in with their money, drove up material costs and therefore prices of regular weavers, drove down wages and therefore the ability to pay for higher quality work, and sold a garbage product that broke within a year , which meant that people ended up spending MORE money on clothing. Only the rich people buying these machines were profiting off of this progress in technology at the expense of regular folk and ironically manually weaved clothing became a luxury product only the rich could afford. Regular people noticed that; hence the burning of weaving machines.
2) The same rich people who could afford weaving machines were well connected within the political system of the time and there was a massive governmental effort to silence and imprison people protesting the obvious injustice of how the weaving technology was destroying the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people without any recourse. Hence the protests intensified and the burning of weaving machines commenced.
Does any of that sound familiar?
I have had many coworkers be replaced already...
TV repairers actually existed? I only remember back in the days we fix TVs by hammer or judo chops.
My mom was trained to write on a typewriter diagnostics that a doctor was saying live. The idea is that multiple people would do it so you end up with multiple copies. It's a job that stop existing when with the invention of printers on computers I think.
Yes in a system where profit is king automation does kill jobs, although it could also allow for people with massive workloads to work less. All in all the killing or decision to kill is up to the mode of the economy and those in its hierarchy not automation itself
“Everything we’ve learned from history says otherwise” ai is the exception to the rule. It is beyond anything we’ve seen in history.
As someone who works in fast food and retail, we have AI taking over the drive thrue already. At a few McDs, one or both speakers are handled by an AI. As long as you speak loudly and clearly, which you should in the first place, the AI gets the order right most of the time.
May end up replacing the drive-thrue person, but to be honest, I'm happy for such a feature. Means we employees don't have to try listening to humans who have no idea to order. Whether they are stupid, drunk, old, a Karen, etc, they can deal with the an AI voice instead. And it's always a laugh to see them drive away in anger. XP
Absolutely, supermarkets are a prime example with self checkouts.
Low tier restaurant musicians were replaced by affordable tape decks. I have a friend who's dad lost his living because of that and he could not reprofile because that was he did since he was a kid.
Yuval Noah Harari already predicted how this probably will occur a few decades ago, you dont need AI to replace EVERY job to create a widespread social problem, you just need ai to replace enough jobs for the demand of workers be lower than the amount of unemployed citizens, thus creating an unbalance in the economy.
"something for the rag and bone man....over my dead .... body"
Is it just me or does his shirt looks like it says seal backwards instead of LABS. 😂😂
Chimney Sweep still exists, but they do not enter chimneys themselves anymore, not are they kid.
Yes and that is the *POINT*, good!
Eli Whitney created the cotton gin believing it would reduce demand for slaves and thus allow them to be freed. Funny thing was it had the opposite effect. While it reduced the labor in removing seeds, it increased the labor to grow and pick it.
PSA: this video is about job automation, which combines an area this channel does specialise in (technology) with one in which does not specialise in (economics). An unintended narrative that may not be in line with most up to date economic literature about job automation may be possible. Any normative statements should be taken with a grain of salt.
This PSA needs a homework assignment. If the Minimum Wage increase to $25 hourly in California results in lost jobs, will it still result in a more stable economy going forward that can potentially generate new job growth? (Providing workers with funds to signal market demand for new opportunities). Or do technology companies on the West Coast need to work with companies and governments on the East Coast to inflate the East Coast economies to for "more profitable" job growth to lure impoverished individuals away from the modern California "Gold Rush", towards more sustainable job markets and economies elsewhere in the country, in order to avoid over stressing water resources on the West Coast?
@@marvinmallette6795 my PSA did not make any statements about costs of labour and demand one way or the other, this was intentional. I merely want to warn people not to confuse an opinion with a fact, regardless of the truthfulness of said opinion.
@@Xtrems You're losing the plot pal.
TH-cam is a discussion "forum". A forum is _"a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."_
There is a need to facilitate the exchange of ideas.
PSA: Asking questions is not misinformation.
@@marvinmallette6795 I did not claim you are misinforming people. I just informed you I am not interested in a discussion with you or anyone else.
@@Xtrems It is concerning that you do not want to discuss it.
The point of peer review is to establish whether or not research stands in the face of scrutiny.
You have implied that there is advanced research which is necessary for discussion of the topics presented in the Linus Tech Tips video. _"Up to date economic literature about job automation."_ Something which has held up to scrutiny, and is perhaps considered to be established economic "theory".
If it is not "theory", then it is "hypothesis" a.k.a "speculation".
From what perspective is this speculation being done? What biases are implicit in the research?
You don't want to discuss it with anyone, but I do want the audience of Linus Tech Tips to discuss the implications, and I provided a relevant and current topic of discussion.
I think we wont have to worry about finding a job replacement in our lifetime.
The best example I give people when saying that is "Do you prefer having 20 people per town making ice, or do you prefer having a refrigerator?" Also new technologies don't create themselves, people have to make and maintain them. Just like with my ice factory example, people have to make and fix refrigerators, thus the number jobs actually increases in most technological advancements.
Awesome bots in the comments
Boop boop beep bop I’m a robot.
My mom was a switch board operator back in the 60’s.
I think one of the earliest jobs AI will replace is those who create AI. That is a process that clearly can be automated because it is all information processing.
depends, does it create new opportunities that translate into jobs that humans can be employed, or does the tech not only replace humans in one area but support itself by being logically used in those new opportunities. And at what point does it become you've unemployed enough people to make capitalize not work when demand can not afford supply.
I studied industrial automation so when the robots rise, I am on the right side!
I started in computers very early in their use. Then it was said jobs will go, paper will cease to exist. Well jobs have in the main, increased. Paper, well the mills struggle to keep, and masses of written paper is stored.
LG sent a tv repair guy instead of just replacing my tv... he spend so much time and couldnt fix it, he returned 2 weeks later with new replacement parts and couldnt fix it.
I asked to give me the parts and the service secret menu code, and fixed it all by myself. So my entire TV got replaced at the end.... part for part... but it took almost a month and i fixed it by my own, i just wanted to replace the broken mainboard for free because it was still under warrenty.
LG TV Mainboard broke down, bad quality product maybe. I hate Smart TV systems, its stupid slow and not very durable.
Are you guys low-key sponsored by Chuck Tingle? This is the second reference to his work this week!
The absolute second that a corporation can save even a dollar a day they will do it without hesitation
5:46 Linus
A Twilight Zone episode from 1967 called The Brain Center At Whipple’s was about a company replacing human workers with robot workers, including management eventually
well the thing is moslty in the past people would be replaced by tools that still required some sort of person to (operate/maintain/upgrade etc) however the whole point of this wave is to make tools that are self suficient (at least when we talk in the whole system), yes there will be jobs were using people would be cheaper than machines the kinds of jobs people wouldnt do unless desperate
Yeah the next couple years should be fun. And by "fun" I mean chaos.
Prove me wrong corporate world, prove me wrong.
Better technology makes more better jobs for horses
Yes it has since the industrial revolution but it has also created a lot.
Ironically more and more videos of people losing their jobs to AI are appearing, so... Specially on the design area where the AI is trained on the style of the designer before getting fired.
Currently in 3 lawsuits because people scrapped my artwork and used it in ai
Don't know how ai helps artist when it's just stealing our work and making it more difficult overall.
Good point on how AI won't do as well as humans on most tasks, but they will do just good enough that it'll be worth it if it means you can fire 90% of the employees.
There are some differences that make this threat more serious than any other. Speed. It will be one of the fastest changes in history. The revolution of these tools is something never seen before. Implementation cost. Unlike other changes in history, this one will have a very low implementation cost, lower than maintaining human employees. Finally, it will reach professionals who cannot simply change their area in 3 months, they are people who spent a decade studying, and would need another decade to change their professional area.
Idk what yall did but all LTT content feel off my feed